Ever since the administration came into office, there has been a philosophy that softer language will create softer enemies. We have heard countless times, that using terms like "radical Islam", or "Islamic Jihadists" somehow strengthens our enemy. The better strategy, we are told, is the psychological high road of omitting any reference to who your enemy is, and what your enemy does.
The President has chided Trump, and those like him, for their repeated references to those that perpetrate terrorist acts either in the name of, or sanctioned by, terrorist groups. Certainly, if using terms such as "radical Islamists" emboldens our enemy, then we should have seen an uptick in their attacks since Trump entered the political stage? I'm curious - I don't remember hearing too many references to 'radical Islamic terrorists' before 9/11. What language was being used prior to that attack, to push them to fly planes into buildings? By all accounts, one could surmise that it is the increase in terrorism that has lead to the increase in references to 'Islamic radicals', not the other way around.
Let's approach the issue from the other direction. What empirical data do we have to show, that the use of 'softer' language has:
Decreased the number of attacks?
Decreased recruitment by these organizations?
Decreased the threat they pose?
Won over the 'hearts and minds' of their membership?
There exists a converse relationship here. If the use of specific adjectives and identifiers gives our enemy strength, then the omission of such would weaken them, would it not? Let the President defend his assertion with empirical evidence instead of raising a straw man argument.